The Rubber Board vs M/S. Comtrust Super Designer … on 19 September, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 27638 of 2008(M)


1. THE RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M/S. COMTRUST SUPER DESIGNER TILES PVT.
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :19/09/2008

 O R D E R
                       V. RAMKUMAR, J.
               * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                  W.P.(C) No. 27638 of 2008
               * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                      Dated: 19-09-2008

                           JUDGMENT

The defendant in O.S.No. 104 of 2006 on the file of the

Sub Court, Palakkad which is a suit for realisation of money

challenges Ext.P4 order dated 24-06-2008 passed by the

trial court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner

as I.A. No. 610 of 2007 under Order 14 Rule 2 read with

Sec. 151 C.P.C. seeking to decide the question of territorial

jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.

2. As against the plaint averment, that part of the

cause of action arose at Kavilpad amsom and so it was

within the territorial jurisdiction of the court below, (i.e.

Sub Court, Palakkad), the petitioner alleged in the written

statement that the entire transaction had taken place in

Kottayam District, outside the jurisdiction of the court

below. The court below was not inclined to accept the said

contention to hold that that court has no territorial

W.P.C. 27638 of 2008 -:2:-

jurisdiction over the matter.

3. It is settled position that for deciding the

territorial jurisdiction of the court, at the threshold, the

court need only look into the averments in the plaint. The

contention of the defendant in a subsequently filed written

statement cannot decide the locus of the forum at that

stage. If after trial, the court is of the view that no part of

the cause of action arose in the local limits of the court

below, then the court may decide the question of territorial

jurisdiction after considering the principle enunciated in

Sec. 21 of C.P.C. I see no reason to interfere with the

discretion exercised by the court below .

This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

V. RAMKUMAR,
(JUDGE)

ani.

W.P.C. 27638 of 2008 -:3:-